Axe Fx II smokes the Ultra

[Soma]

Yeah, geez everyone stop being so enthusiastic. [/sarcasm]

This thread is ridiculous, I think there are some sticks in desperate need of removal.

Cheers.

 

[steverosburg]

Yeah, this is getting pretty rediculous. There are a whole bunch of touchy people here apparently. I loved my Ultra before I got my II, and I still think it's fantastic. However, I am able to get a better handle on certain sounds than I was able to previously, and in a lot less time. Regardless of whether it's because of a lack of tweaking prowess or whether the new models are just better, the plain simple fact is that most people with II's are raving about how they are getting the sounds they are after, and may not have been able to previously. I don't think any "dumping" on the Ultra was intended, and the difference between the Ultra and II may not be such a simple thing to distinguish or detail. I spent HOURS trying to dial in certain low-gain breakup sounds on my Ultra, and they were a snap on the II.

 

[FractalAudio]

It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.

For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.

 

[s0c9]

Does that imply that the new settings also won't map to the old box? I'm wondering whether the major difference between the II and I in terms of sonic performance is that the II has default values which are "optimized ( I know - optimized is a very subjective term). If the default values of the II were translated to the I, how does the I compare? Is that possible to check out or are the settings simply so apples and oranges different that they can't be compared?

Well yes and no. Many of the effect blocks have had changes to available parameters.. some added some removed, and many "tweaked" to new defaults. Thus, where the amp presence had a negative value in the I model, its only positive in the II. Other values have gone from +50%/-50% to +100%/-100%, so you would have to translate -24.9% in I to the new value of -49.8%.

In addition, some parameters have had ranges changed... So, yes and no to converting either direction. Depends on block and parameter.

 

[bammbamm]

Up to how much "more distortion"? Would it still be apparent right to the "brootalz"? Or would there be diminishing apparent effect by the time you reach that point due to compression?

Thanks.

It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.

For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.

 

[dk_ace]

It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.

For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.

Most of Jay's clips I've heard have been driven Plexi tones, not clean jazz stuff. As for how big of a difference the II makes in the modeling department. I look forward to seeing for myself. I have a hard time believing that it's very significant though. The Axe I feels great to me and responds better than most tube amps I've used (in FW 11). I can get the sounds I want out of the modeled amps. How much more is there really to gain? I'm convinced it's not much, and certainly not enough to "blow away" my Standard.

I'm still considering getting a II when they're around and I have the cash. I want the added functionality and simplified and expanded effects capabilities. I'm fairly convinced that if I keep both units, I'll be able to get them to sound and feel virtually identical if I try to.

D

 

[jdolll]

The presets for the amps on the II smoke the gen 1 presets, I'll say that. I feel like most of the amps have more than subtle improvements, the only one i would suggest as a possibility of smoking the gen 1 model is the top boost. Which says a lot as it is the main amp i used on my ultra. I really enjoyed that sound, but this one was just that much better for me, whats even more is that my new patch is more or less the factory top boost preset with a slight eq change and the master boosted. Out of the box it really shows off what its got because the first 40 or so presets are just that good IMO.

 

[Charlie Wardick]

Up to how much "more distortion"? Would it still be apparent right to the "brootalz"? Or would there be diminishing apparent effect by the time you reach that point due to compression?
Thanks.

The only way to absolutely ever answer that question for "me" would be to run them head to head and decide for myself based on my use of the products, environment etc. It's just that way for me when comparing anything to anything.

 

[Charlie Wardick]

The presets for the amps on the II smoke the gen 1 presets, I'll say that.

I have no opinion on that having not tried for myself, but I don't think its a fair comparision. Someone no doubt spent mega-time dialing in those presets based on the current status of hardware and firmware to of course showcase the product. Makes perfect sense that is what you do with new stuff. When was the last time anyone spent time on the vintage presets dialing them in for currency on the standard or ultra? 2009 perhaps at version 8? Lots under the hood changed since then.

 

[Sayt0n]

I own both an ultra and a II and both are great units and nothing out there still touches an ultra so by no way shape or form is the ultra any less of a better unit because the II is now out!!! Like Cliff said, where i see the most difference is in the high gain stuff, which is what the digital has had the hardest time "simulating" up to this point. The cleans however, in my optinion were there a while ago. Both the ultra and the II are super units and anyone with either or...... I will call my friend!!

All I can think of right now is imagine what the II will sound like when we hit firmware V11(it may sound like an AXE FX 3!!!
Ops...I just got a woody

 

[GuitarDojo]

Why are you going off on me? While I'm anything but disappointed with the new model, I'd say I've been more measured in my comments than the vast majority of folks who've actually tried one.

If you think that sonic quality as demonstrated in compressed audio clips is the only thing worth evaluating, you're more than welcome to that perspective. That said, given the quality of the Ultra's sound and the sonic detail lost in MP3 compression, it's not necessarily going to knock your socks off. Personally, I've never been a fan of clips as a way to evaluate a piece of gear, particularly amps. For me, the way an amp feels and responds is as big a deal as having the right timbre. Very few clips I've ever heard do a decent job of expressing that. Of course, YMMV.

Wasn't really going off, as i can see how may be perceived. Just calling you out. Not pissed, not loosing sleep My post was also a response to the culmination of the posts in between too. Waiting for someone to "bring it"!!! With the Axe-2. especially after the "it smokes the Ultra" statement.

 

[goodwill559]

Gosh, well if that's the case, then I'd probably be hyperbola-ting & hyperventilating too.

I can haz brootlz?

Time to admit I'm guilty of picking nits, but hyperbole is one of my pet-peeves.

Nyuck nyuck nyuck.

It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.

For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player

Cliff, that's incorrect. I made a living playing rock 'n' roll, blues, rock, funk, etc. My present trio's song list covers everything from ZZ Top to Steely Dan to Little Feat, and the sounds I use on most of those tunes are anything but "clean jazz tones." I use my Marshall presets with a Strat quite a bit more than I use clean ones with an archtop. Those presets do clean up well, but they are set for quite a bit of overdrive. The comparison clips I posted earlier were Marshall sounds.

And I never once said there is no difference.

 

[aleclee]

Wasn't really going off, as i can see how may be perceived. Just calling you out.

Calling me out for what? Pointing out that some of my favorite new features aren't anything that can be easily represented in a clip? Review my posts since I got my II a week ago and find one instance...ONE INSTANCE...where I made a comment that even resembles "it smokes the Ultra".

You've got the wrong guy.

 

[GuitarDojo]

Calling me out for what? Pointing out that some of my favorite new features aren't anything that can be easily represented in a clip? Review my posts since I got my II a week ago and find one instance...ONE INSTANCE...where I made a comment that even resembles "it smokes the Ultra".

You've got the wrong guy.

Yup. Sorry... The quote was yours but more directed at the OP as far as the smokin part......

 

[mark_melling]

hahahaha...what a thread!! So does the OP actually like his Ax??

Who needs Ax v's Eleven rack anymore!!

 

[jdolll]

Axe v 11R is a thing of the past. It's now axe I vs axe II

 

[Axe5288]

NO
I have owned mine for about 1 1/2 years, and am still way impressed with its toanality, and have my hands quite full with all the possibilities. The FW 11.0 upgrade did hit the sweet spot though. I have the option of playing thru 2 QSC powered K10's or 2 Atomic powered wedges. Each has its strength, but prefer the Atomic wedges overall. The K10's for Acoustic & vocals. I say all that to say sound is subjective, different people hear different things. It is a matter of taste. I like many people "feel the need" to own the "newest" "best" equip. out there. My ONLY knock on the Ultra is the lack of a USB. Other than that I dont believe the Ultras comparetive "short comings" are going to prohibit me from becoming the next Alex Lifeson )) or @ least having an absolute BLAST everytime I fire up the Ultra.

 

[Stratman68]

I have to agree with Dutch, but not for the same reasons... I have no intention of ditching my Ultra (it has some things that are lacking in the II), so for me, resale value is of no immediate consequence.

No, my issue with the statement "II smokes Ultra" is with the overwhelming use of unrealistic, over-the-top statements. It occurred at every firmware release for Standard and Ultra in the past. "Wow, whatever was missing before is now completely there now!" ... or ... "the ultimate update, can't get any better!" ... you see the point. If the last update was so unbeatable, how can the II "smoke the Ultra"? That kind of statement is just as useless as the counterarguments such as "it sounds digital or unrealistic".

So please, enough of these over-the-top statements that completely fail the credibility test. I don't think anything exists out there that can "smoke an Ultra".

Very well said-I agree 1,000%

 

[EdgE]

I can't believe we are out to bag on a guy because he's happy. If he feels it smokes another box, then he's entitled to that opinion. And you are entitled to not agree with him and post it.

But really, folks are just too damn touchy about most anything. If you like something, the folks rush in to tell you you like it too much. If you don't like something, folks rush in to tell you you dislike it too much. Slow down folks - the bigger the forum gets, the less we will 'all' agree on any one thing anyway.

And that's ok. It's all ok. And none of it is really that important.

I think maybe we should be smoken something else and we would all agree